It's also a good example of why an organization needs to continuously evaluate vendors of their software. McAfee long ago slipped into the pile of "not good eno

It's also a good example of why an organization needs to continuously evaluate vendors of their software. McAfee long ago slipped into the pile of "not good enough" system security vendors while plenty of other alternatives shot past them in the virus/malware detection space. Basically they've been coasting on the good name they built up in the past, but I wouldn't think of installing any of their software on my system from the last 3-4 years. Slow, buggy, system resource hog, poor detection results, etc. This is all pretty common knowledge at this point. An enterprise should go through a yearly eval of all baseline software and find better alternatives. Or at the very least, when the software comes due for another purchase. The thinking should be, if they've gotten sloppy about their core business, they are going to get sloppy elsewhere...and that's exactly what happened here. edit relevant quote from the article, "One thing I’m picking up from that coverage is that McAfee is pretty much a spent force, especially in the consumer PC protection market, and I shouldn’t be relying on the company to keep my PC safe anyway." Even Mr. Wainewright fell into the trap of not caring about critical security software on his system. It was news to him that they've fallen off the horse. It scares me that somebody who couldn't even be bothered to stay up to date on something like this has a column on ZDnet. Maybe I'm being unfair, but like I said, McAfee has had this reputation for piss poor software for at least 3 years.